Huguenot

Well there's two ways to explore that safety issue I guess. Yours, SteveT is an escalation in weaponry, but the guys on the ground clearly feel that reducing the local's inclination to attack could also contribute. History would have it that conciliation is usually the most successful path. But hey, some people just like to shoot guns and be threatening.

I think your argument is well put silverfox - to see abuses in Ireland and extrapolate from there that the institution is corrupt would be a step too far. I wasn't actually saying that. I was saying the the entire institution, hierarchy and belief system of a church is intrinsically corrupt and evil, and that the activities of paedophiles in Ireland is one symptom of many. You can't 'iron out structural weaknesses' in an organisation whose entire worldview is predicated on giving up self-determination in favour of following the dogma of a religious text conceived and edited in a time when such tyrannies were seen as a useful way of controlling the masses by thoroughly despicable people. This is what the autocratic leadership of the Catholic Church aspire to. You could only iron out the weakness by dethroning the pope, discarding the bible and refusing to elevate priests above their neighbours.

I think a plaintive argument about flower-arrangers is akin to arguing that camp guards were only following orders and they love their mums. To work for any organisation is both an endorsement and a reinforcement. In doing so you take responsibility for its perpetuation and growth. I'm guessing, Silverfox, that to you the church is about social cohesion and charity, but I would argue that these elements happen in spite of the church, not because of it. To identify the character of an organisation you need to consider its inspiration, mandate, actions, accountability and ambition. The root of the church is the abdication of responsibility for all adherents in the face of supreme power invested in a totally unaccountable divine super-being. In the case of the Catholic church they have also created a hierarchy through which this power is divested, and by consequence elevate the priest to semi-divine status. This is corrupt and intrinsically evil. It doesn't just allow personal tragedies to unfold - in creating an environment where this activity can flourish it positively encourages it, like a well-watered garden. To argue that the Irish tragedy is the action of a few lone individuals sounds like NRA hogwash - "Guns don't klill people, people etc...". The actions of churches across millenia have been vicious and genocidal. In the face of this oppression the crimes of a few Irish paedophiles is a drop in the ocean. The argument you've used before about a lot of people being in the organisation still doesn't make it right. Craven mobs aren't right just because they've got several protagonists.

Jude was Obscure.

"As to whether that is far fetched to you depends on your faith. I find the mathmatical probability of life evolving far- fetched - more chance of me winning the lottery and never buying a ticket (no comments about that please before you all start on me, lol) - so you have to make a personal decision as to what you will believe after a careful search." I may not have quite got that one. Are you saying the bible is true because it's simply more plausible? Gosh. Not sure what people can turn up in a search? I guess people could search their soul, and find it's more convenient to run with the Bible stuff? That doesn't mean it's true. People choose to believe stuff every day because it's convenient - battered wives and cuckolds. It's not true though.

"or live in tiny heated flats with no pantry " Blinking heck. Heating? There's a crime.

BB100, I don't conflate 'God' and 'religion'. If you look just a couple of posts above this one, I conceded that a 'creator' has perfectly rational reasons to be included as a 'reason for being here'. Your 'God' however, was decidedly human - to the point of being responsible for language. At that point you're in the self-regarding 'religion' hole. I suspect that my contribution to jury service, such as it was, was both appropriate and compassionate. Your own, given that you indulge in judgmental non-sequitors, may be only of your own devising. I see no sense in 'exploring' an assertion that the sky is green and that things we don't understand are magic. I hope you'll indulge my impatience. My worldview is full of effort and responsibility, yours is full of capitulation and passive acceptance. Yours is very attractive, I can understand why you're there.

"Anti-discrimination legislation (e.g. on sex and race) was, in my view, necessary in order to ensure a fairer deal for women and (e.g.) black people. As it is, it has not completely stopped discrimination on grounds of sex or race, but it has reduced it somewhat." I think you're kind of supporting my argument here... If nobody wanted to discriminate on the basis of sex and race, then it wouldn't happen. Legislation hasn't completely worked, because although it has imposed regulation, it hasn't addressed the core issue - people still perceive benefits in discrimination, either on an economic or social level. The issue could be better addressed by effectively demonstrating that reductions in discrimination improved standards of living for all, thus reducing the motivation. Anyway, it's offtopication; my point is that the problem would be easier to address if nobody wanted to throw stuff away, rather than walling up the dustbin and causing social discontent through unwelcome legislation. Remember the poll tax?

"If religion is angry what's your excuse? I could pick through all your comments but you're not looking for an answer to the question. This is just a forum to promote your own ideas. Bon chance!" It seems to be a forum to promote your ideas too, BB100, since you've expressed them and publicised them - which is no more than I have. You have also argued against my own position and I have against yours. There is an equality here, not a persecution. It's a shameful trick to claim to be a victim of a grand conspiracy. Anyway, I've already told you what makes me angry - religion is an expansionist, totalitarian regime run by autocrats to dictate the social and moral context of our lives without consideration for our own views or needs. It's both oppressive and unnecessary. If I thought there was a rational foundation for this dogma I could be appeased, but to base it on superstitious beliefs and medieval practices is beyond the pale.

I tend to sit if I'm wearing pale trousers - the ol' Del Monte looks crashingly embarrassing with only the merest sprinkle-back. Out here older gents squat on the toilet seat, which causes all manner of hairline fractures. One can be taken unawares by ageing plastic that bends slightly at your weight, only to snap back with venom when you rise - and the cracks bite tightly into your soft pink buttocks.

Hovering throughout the process?

I'm always shocked when sitting in a cubicle and hearing some lunatic going through half the roll of loo paper before they've even started...

Legislation is always less effective than challenging people's motivation, so to address the issue you'd need to address the motivation first. Possibly some of the following could be considered: * It's convenient (no-one likes to go hungry because they haven't eaten enough) * It's attractively priced (there's no penalty for over-buying) * It's attractively packaged (marketers have all sorts of creative ideas to increase shelf-appeal) * Bountiful tables heaving with delicious treats are a traditional cultural sign of status and achievement * Discarding unwanted items elevates self-worth makes us feel good * No-one criticises us If you can systematically nail those motives, then you'll go some way to addressing the problem methinks...

A bit three quarter length trousers in the EDD?

Quite Silverfox, and most scientists would agree that a 'creator' could be one of the seven likely instigators behind the big bang. However, there is an unmeasurable distance between this 'creator', and the anthropogenic, omnipresent, omniscient God to which most on this thread are referring when they talk about language creation or the eyes of babies. The latter God takes an interest in human affairs, has moral standing, and employs a squad of autocrats on earth to organise his worship. This to me seems as absurd as the universe rotating around the earth. In that sense my outrage is only that hyper-aggressive clowns with a history of genocide think they have a right to dictate the social and moral context of my life.

I'm not agitated. A wee bit disparaging of people re-branding a protest as some sort of light hearted street entertainment perhaps. I feel it's disingenuous. Besides, I thought the very idea of a flash mob was to subvert the natural social order? Lefties going to leftie demos with other lefties to complain about big-business has been around so long it's positively conformist. Even the middle classes are doing it now. (Not that I support Trafigura at all, they've been very naughty boys. "Call off the Dogs" is still terribly Citizen Smith.)

I hardly think 11 pages is people failing to look into it. However, I also feel reasonably strongly that not being able to see an 'immediate' rational explanation is much grounds for the existence of God. Otherwise, we'd see God in every swinging door, or as I think Declan put it, the 'eyes of a baby'. Why would God speak 'human'? It's a quaintly ego-centric notion. As is oft pointed out, a remote control would be seen as magical by an earlier generation: but in hindsight it didn't need an omnipotent, omnipresent, stern moraliser for it to be created - merely a mechanism our ancestors had yet to work out. We've been around 20,000 years on a planet 4 billion years old, in a universe 14 billion years old. The law of averages would suggest that there's a lot we've yet to discover that won't need a anthropogenic God to have fashioned it. In fact I would argue that attributing it to God requires some considerable cop-out.

Mockery is far too strong - it was parody, a little poking fun. It is an example of how seriously religion takes itself that it can't take a bit of ribbing. It overreacts, seeing every deviation from the core belief system as catastrophic, heretical, and the penalties it lays down are severe. Religion is imperialist, totalitarian and so, so very angry.

Chuckle. I don't think you could say fiat economies don't work because history demonstrates returns to gold. You could just as easily say gold standards don't work because current experience shows returns to fiat currencies.

:))

So what do you actually want, Lousiana? What's your plan?

Have you come onto the forum just to be rude to people? How does that make you feel? A psychologist would have a field day! Do you have an example of this 'sense of humour', I've sifted through your posts, but...?

Have you come onto the forum just to be rude to people? How does that make you feel? A psychologist would have a field day! Do you have an example of this 'sense of humour', I've sifted through your posts, but...?

So your sister would be a Kiwi then? Now that's a heavy burden to bear.... ;-)

So your sister would be a Kiwi then? Now that's a heavy burden to bear.... ;-)